Sukhpal Singh Khaira VS State of Punjab (2022)

Case Name: Sukhpal Singh Khaira VS State of Punjab 2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara
Petitioner Name: Sukhpal Singh Khaira
Respondent’s Name: State of Punjab and others
Decision: Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 January, 2024

Introduction

Section 319 of CrPC states that when an accused name is neither mentioned in an FIR nor in the challan (i.e. charge sheet), such person can still be brought as an accused if evidence is sufficient. The court may summon him in that case by using this provision.

The primary objective of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is to hold accountable all individuals found guilty of a crime. However, it becomes contentious in scenarios where, after the trial and judgment has passed in a case, new evidence arises about an additional accused.

The question then arises: Can such individuals be summoned even after the trial has concluded? This ruling establishes crucial directives that the appropriate court is required to follow when exercising its powers under Section 319 of the CrPC.

Facts of the Case

• An FIR was registered on 5th March 2015 in Police Station Sadar in Jalalabad against 11 accused.
• They were charged under Sections 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the NDPS Act, 1985; Section 25-A of Arms Act; and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• A total of 1.8 Kg of Psychotropic substances (Heroin) was recovered along with:
  • 24 Gold biscuits
  • 1 country made Pistol with 2 live cartridges
  • 1 revolver with 25 live cartridges
  • 1 Pakistani Mobile
  • 2 Pakistani SIM cards

The sessions court divided the trial due to the absence of one accused who was evading arrest and continued proceedings without this individual.

• On October 31, 2017, the court convicted nine individuals and acquitted one.
• On the same day, the court approved prosecution’s request to summon five additional accused (not named in the chargesheet), including Sukhpal Singh, MLA and opposition leader.

Sukhpal Singh filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court, arguing that once judgment is passed, the trial ends, and hence the court has no power under Section 319 of CrPC.

• The High Court rejected the CRP and upheld the summoning order.
• Dissatisfied, the petitioner submitted a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution to the Supreme Court.
• A two-judge bench was constituted, but given the significant legal questions, the matter was referred to a five-judge bench under Article 143(3).

Issues Raised

1. Whether the trial court possesses authority under Section 319 to summon additional accused after the trial concerning co-accused has concluded and judgment has been issued?
2. Whether the trial court has jurisdiction under Section 319 to summon additional accused while trial involving other absconding accused is still in progress or segregated from the main trial?
3. What protocols must the appropriate court follow while exercising authority under Section 319 of CrPC?

Contentions

From the Appellant Side

• Once trial concludes and judgment is issued, Section 319 ceases to apply, and the court becomes functus officio.
• Hence, summoning order after judgment violates Section 319 of CrPC.
• In Hardeep Singh case, it was clarified that such power must be exercised only during the pendency of trial.

By Amicus Curiae

• Nagamuthu stated that:
  • If an accused is acquitted, proceedings terminate.
  • If guilty, proceedings continue until sentencing (since accused has right to present evidence at that stage).
  • Thus, the trial concludes only after sentencing is pronounced.
• Also stated:
  • Evidence brought in a split-up case can’t be considered in the main trial.
  • When additional accused is summoned, the trial must be a fresh trial as per Section 319(1).

From the Respondent Side

• Section 319 ensures no offender escapes justice.
• Summoning was justified based on new evidence and while another related case remained unresolved.
• The trial continues until sentencing order is issued, as sentence is an integral part of judgment.
• Shri A.K Prasad: Court becomes functus officio only after sentencing.
• S.V. Raju: Section 319 can apply at any point, even after pronouncement of sentence, if new involvement comes to light.
• He also cited Law Commission’s recommendation that no accused should escape accountability.

Rationale

After hearing both sides, the Court weighed:

• The intent behind Section 319 (Law Commission Report), and
• The principle of verbis legis non est recedendum (strict statutory interpretation).

References were made to:

• Hardeep Singh case – clarified when judgment is considered complete.
• Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra – held that conviction alone is not judgment; judgment is only complete after sentencing.

Thus:

• Section 319 powers can only be exercised prior to trial’s conclusion (conviction + sentencing).
• If summoning and sentencing occur on the same day, validity depends on case-specific circumstances.

Defects of Law

• Ambiguity in Section 319:
  • It does not clearly define at what stage the court may exercise powers.
  • Section 319(1) states “any person not being accused may be tried together with the accused,” while Section 319(4) mandates a fresh trial.
  • This creates confusion: should the trial be joint or de novo?

Inference

The case highlights the necessity for precision in Section 319 regarding trial stage and procedure for summoning additional accused.

Courts must balance justice delivery with procedural safeguards to prevent misuse.

This judgment serves as a key reference for interpreting Section 319, aligning legislative intent with protection of accused rights.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India